I hate the term – others love the term. They can love the term for their own reasons but it physically destroys me, especially when it is used pre-birth as in the baby has not been born and the papers aren’t even signed. Can someone explain a logical reason why agencies promote the use of the term birth mother? Is it to play mind games on both the mother and hopeful mother? To get them so accustomed to the roles of giving and taking a child from one family to another – long before it even happens?
Does it psychologically assist manipulate the mother to place? Does it psychologically assist manipulate the hopeful mother to accept a baby that is not yours by birth, because once the papers are signed you hold the title of mother, and the mother has always been just the birth mother? Does it disenfranchise the hopeful parent from acknowledging that the mother is giving up her child because she was already a birth mother? Does it make the transaction easier?
When a mother has a child growing inside of her – she is just a mother. No more – No less. Give her respect and don’t call her a birth mother. And even if she does relinquish her baby to you – still don’t call her a birth mother – she is still the mother of your child and will be for life – respect her for who she is as a person and who she is to your child. Or always refer to yourself as adoptive mother and your child as your adopted child. And it goes without saying that I apply the same thoughts to the term birth father…Qualifiers offend me in adoption.
I dream of the day I can read a hopeful parents through adoption blog and not see the term birth mother…and please don’t even think of using the term “our birth mother”…
Edited to add – I do understand using qualifiers in some instances but when it can be clearly understood there is no need.